The three programs represent a growing list of STEM and science-enrichment programs available throughout the year. The variety of programs give the impression the area is bucking gloomy scenarios painted in so many comparisons of U.S. students’ science knowledge compared to students in the rest of the industrialized world.

Sit down with five Peoria High School science teachers, and optimism is quickly tempered with doses of harsh realities.

For instance, chemistry teacher Mike Lewellyn’s assessment of Illinois’ science learning standards: archaic and “as ambiguous as they could have ever been.”

Science questions on the ACT test taken by all 11th graders don’t match what students learn in high school or what they have to do in college, said physics teacher Joel Morton.

Though Peoria School District 150 recommends more, the state requires only two years of science to graduate from high school.

There’s more, from dumbed-down basic science courses, the need for more women in science, and perennial shortages of science teachers, which translates to key classes such as chemistry and physics taught by long-term substitute teachers.

And that’s at Peoria High, where science teachers have a brand new science wing. At Richwoods, science teachers make do with outdated labs and equipment. Manual Academy has struggled to keep qualified science teachers.

Illinois, one of 26 original lead partners, adopted the standards in February. The new standards are supposed to replace the old learning standards as the backbone for science education in the 2016-17 school year. Peoria School District 150 has already begun preparing teachers and revising its curriculum to meet the new standards.

Based on conversations with teachers in other school districts, District 150 is ahead of the curve, Lewellyn said. “Before, we were always playing catch up. Now we’re looking at what’s coming down the road and getting ready, instead of getting run over.”

The aforementioned Fordham Institute was not impressed with NGSS, either. Their reviewers gave the new standards a “C” grade. But the National Science Teachers Association, a partner in developing the new standards, disagreed with the Fordham Institute’s assessment.

“The NGSS is based on a current and robust body of research established by our nation’s leading scientists,” said David Evans, NSTA executive director in a 2013 news release. “In contrast, the Fordham review is based on personal opinions and lacks serious substantive research. We need to prepare students for the next generation, not the last.”

Though new science standards are aligned with the Common Core, organizations involved with the development of NGSS shy away from making direct comparisons. But NGSS may run into Common Core-type controversies over how evolution and climate change are taught.

The new science standards also put more emphasis on integrating engineering practices into classwork, Morton said, which could present problems. “We can’t get enough warm bodies to teach chemistry and physics, let alone warm bodies with a background in engineering.”

In other words, the state of science education is in a state of flux. LaToy Kennedy, the district’s chief curriculum and instructional officer, herself a former science teacher, takes the long-term, bottom-up long-term perspective when it comes to improving science education and increasing the number of science teachers.

“We’re trying to increase students’ exposure to science and dispel the myth that science is hard,” she said.

Page 3 of 3 - ______

Longtime teacher offers advice for science education

Joel Morton teaches physics at Peoria High School. He is a certified Master Teacher with 20 years of experience.

Morton won funding and helped implement Project Lead the Way, a pre-engineering program at the former Woodruff High School. He also created a bio-technical engineering class for the program.

He offers frank advice for parents, the community and legislators on how to help students get the most from high-school science classes. Edited excerpts from his response follow.

To parents:

“The best advice I have for parents is to have their kids take the ‘big three’ classes: biology, chemistry, physics, and, if available, geology or ‘earth science.’

The intent is to let kids try as many different things as they can fit in their schedule. If they’re interested in some kind of STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) field as a career, the most important thing is to work very hard in math.

They’ll be able to pick up the science content in their post-high school education. But if they don’t have the math skills, they’re not going to be successful. Calculus is a plus, but it’s more important to have the math down cold so they can succeed in college or whatever comes next.

To the community:

“There are a lot of complicated reasons we have a shortage of people in technical fields, and I don’t have an easy solution. In principle, the labor market will correct the shortage as higher salaries attract more people to those fields. But quite frankly, that doesn’t seem to have happened.

“I’ve been hearing Caterpillar Inc. (for example) complain for close to 20 years that they can’t find as many people as they want. Of course, you have to wonder if what they’re really fussing over is the high cost for that kind of labor.”

To lawmakers:

“I would say good science (and engineering and technical) education is a lot more expensive than they seem to believe it is. Pony up or stop whining about the work force not having the skills that are in demand.”